Who Chose the New Testament Books? - Henry Center

Who Chose the New Testament Books? Politics, Praxis, and Proof in the Early Church

C. E. Hill1

I. POLITICS A. Introduction: Encounters with the Cultural Myth In the ongoing interaction of Christianity with its surrounding culture, the issue of "How We Got the Bible" has become one of the flashpoints of our day. The popular narrative that has sprung up and taken root has become so often repeated, so widely adopted, and its explanatory power has become so effective, that it could probably now qualify as one of our cultural myths: a grand story that serves to explain for a culture a set of phenomena important for its self-understanding. Such a grand story must be simple in its broad strokes, but have enough historical correspondence to make itself plausible to great numbers of people.

Why is such a story about how we got the Bible needed as part of our cultural mythology? That Christianity and its Bible have played a highly prominent role in the history of western culture is obvious and unavoidable to anyone who studies history. In times when the influence of Christianity is not so seriously questioned, the need for an explanatory myth is perhaps not felt so strongly. But today many would see the cultural landscape quite differently, regarding the remaining effects of Christianity as the final flickerings of a failed human experiment, already in its twilight hours.2 Our culture apparently needs a myth, then, not to account for its distinctively Christian character, but to explain its one-time fascination with an increasingly discredited religion. It needs to explain how it was that Christianity--not Islam, Judaism, or Hinduism, not

1 C. E. Hill is Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida.

2 But then, such prognoses of imminent doom for Christianity have been made before, and have always had to be retracted. For an interesting analysis of the current situation, see Ross Douthat, Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics (New York, et al.: Free Press, 2012).

~ 1 ~

secular Humanism or Atheism, but Christianity--came to play the elemental role it has in western and particularly in American culture.

The simple and popular form of the myth is perhaps stated no better than the way Dan Brown gives it in a conversation in The Da Vinci Code.

"Who chose which gospels to include?" Sophie asked "Aha!" Teabing burst in with enthusiasm. "The fundamental irony of Christianity! The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great."3

So, Constantine chose the New Testament books.

I've become fond of telling how a professor in one of my son's classes at the University of Florida asked his students, almost in passing, if anyone knew who it was that chose the books of the Bible? One student's answer fully satisfied his instructor: "The people with the biggest army." So, the People with The Biggest Army chose the New Testament books--and indeed, Constantine would have had the biggest army at the time, since (as we know from Star Wars historians) Supreme Chancellor Palpatine's Imperial stormtroopers had left the scene long, long ago.

People on airplanes, people at Starbucks, tell me the same story or some version of it. It was

Constantine who was the key "chooser," and he and the bishops he assembled for the Council of

Nicaea in A.D. 325 (backed, of course, by the Biggest Army) assembled the Bible as we know it

today. Others who have dug a bit deeper, perhaps read a book or taken a college course, may put

a finer point on it and say that it was really Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, who in the year 367 was the first to specify all twenty-seven books of the New Testament.4 What everyone seems

to agree on is that it was a state-sponsored, state-aligned Christianity in the fourth century, fully

three centuries after Christ, which chose the New Testament books. The Bible was put together

3 Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code: A Novel (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 231. 4 For example, Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), "The first Christian author of any kind to advocate a New Testament canon of our twenty-seven books and no others was Athanasius, the fourth-century bishop of Alexandria. This comes in a letter that Athanasius wrote in 367 CE--over three centuries after the writings of Paul, our earliest Christian author"--a statement that might be technically true but very misleading, as we shall see later.

~ 2 ~

after Christianity had become wedded to the state, and people, societies, civilizations have been struggling to extract themselves from the perceived entanglements with Christianity and its politically constructed Bible ever since.

Christians who regard the Bible as in any real and transcendent sense the word of God might want to comfort themselves with the thought that this is a myth of Christian origins that has spread only on the popular level, through novels and films, and, yes, the occasional college classroom. Serious scholars and other informed people know it isn't true. The funny thing is that many scholars are sounding a lot like the popularizers. In fact, some of the scholars, like Elaine Pagels of Princeton, Bart Ehrman of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and others, are the popularizers. "The Christian canonization process," writes scholar David Dungan in his popular book Constantine's Bible, "involved a governmental intrusion into what had been a scripture selection process...."5 Dungan regards the Christian creation of a canon of Scripture as "a unique development in the world's religions, found for the first time in fourth- and fifthcentury Romanized Catholic Christianity."6

There is of course a long history between the time of Jesus and the critical events of the fourth century, the rise of Constantine, the eventual establishment of Christianity as the state religion, and homogenizing councils like the Council of Nicaea and others. In the minds of many scholars today, the one word that characterizes the entire intervening era perhaps better than any other is the word "diversity" (which, by a curious coincidence, also happens to be one of the most prized cultural values of our own day). Christianity from Jesus to Constantine, you might say, could be described as a very loose and largely uncoordinated movement of diverse groups with varying theologies, all vying for converts in the Greco-Roman world. Some groups were better organized than others, but no group had a majority; no group--from an objective and purely historical viewpoint--should be said to have had a better claim than any other to being the true representative of Jesus and his first followers. In this period we are more to speak of Christianities than of Christianity. What is now commonly referred to as the "proto-orthodox"--

5 David L. Dungan, Constantine's Bible: Politics and the Making of the New Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 133.

6 Dungan, Constantine's Bible, 133.

~ 3 ~

a term coined on the belief that there was no such thing as "orthodoxy" before the fourth century--was merely one of many Christian groups competing for followers.7

The climactic point in the grand narrative of the myth is stated by Bart Ehrman: In brief, one of the competing groups in Christianity succeeded in overwhelming all the others. This group gained more converts than its opponents and managed to relegate all its competitors to the margins.... This group became `orthodox,' and once it had sealed its victory over all of its opponents, it rewrote the history of the engagement--claiming that it had always been the majority opinion of Christianity, that its views had always been the views of the apostolic churches and of the apostles, that its creeds were rooted directly in the teachings of Jesus. The books that it accepted as Scripture proved the point, for Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all tell the story as the proto-orthodox had grown accustomed to hearing it.8

Scholars like Ehrman cite in this regard the well-worn adage: "It's the winners who write the histories." That is, those who get to write the histories are those who have already won the cultural battle. Thus they write history in a way that favors their own party, and puts any rivals in a bad light. The winners who wrote the histories were biased, often so biased, they couldn't even see their own bias. So, when we read early orthodox writers today, we need to adopt a "hermeneutic of suspicion," and "read against the grain."

This is what the history books are telling us today. But then, isn't history always written by the

winners? And aren't the winners often so enmeshed in the reigning cultural narrative that they

7 Ehrman, Lost Christianities, 176, "As a result of this ongoing scholarship, it is widely thought today that proto-orthodoxy was simply one of many competing interpretations of Christianity in the early church. It was neither a self-evident interpretation nor an original apostolic view.... Indeed, as far back as we can trace it, Christianity was remarkably varied in its theological expressions."

8 Bart Ehrman, "Christianity Turned on Its Head: The Alternative Vision of the Gospel of Judas," in R. Kasser, M. Meyer, and G. Wurst, eds., The Gospel of Judas from Codex Tchacos (Washington, DC: National Geographic, 2006), 77?120, at 118. A very similarly worded account may be read in Ehrman, Lost Christianities, 173, where the view is ascribed to Walter Bauer in his celebrated work Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (1934). Bauer may be seen as one of the "godfathers" of the currently popular political approach to early Christianity. For more on Bauer and his influence, see Andreas J. K?stenberger and Michael J. Kruger, The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture's Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010).

~ 4 ~

can't see their own bias? Which is why we ought to read today's historians with the same sort of critical suspicion as they recommend we apply when reading the ancient writers.

If it is true that the books of the New Testament were chosen and assembled under deep political pressure, only after one version of Christianity had achieved victory over its many rivals, what then? Clearly there are many who see this story as a crippling embarrassment to Christians and as another tool by which to marginalize Christianity today. (The marginalization of Christianity would, by the way, qualify as a "political" end.) But is this necessarily so? Embarrassing as it may be, it would not defeat or delegitimize Christianity. If the books of the New Testament were assembled "by hook and by crook," the books were still assembled, and God, according to Christian theology, was not left out of the process. In fact, as the biblical patriarch Joseph told his brothers, his brothers who had sold him into slavery and abandoned him, "You meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today" (Gen. 50:20). If this culturally useful narrative about the formation of the Bible turns out to be accurate, the Christian can still look gratefully and joyfully at the saving message preserved in the New Testament and say, "Constantine and his army may have meant it for evil, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should hear the life-giving voice of Jesus in the books that made it into the New Testament."

The ultimate issue with the political approach, then, is not that it poses some insuperable theological problem for Christianity (as some surely think). The issue is, is it true?

B. Power Plays and Conspiracies Seeing things through the prism of politics and power, our new cultural myth constructs the story of the Bible's formation as a series of epic struggles over what books would be included in the "canon" (the group or list of books functioning authoritatively as Scripture in Christian churches).9 These struggles over books mirrored the larger battle for dominance among the many

9 This is a simple, rough and ready, definition of the term "canon." Scholars today are divided over whether the idea of "canon" must entail the notion of exclusivity--a definite, closed list--or whether it can simply be used for books that function with divine authority in the church, regardless of whether that list is perceived of as closed or not. The exclusivists insist that we not use the word "canon" for the period before the fourth century, for it is only at that time when we know that the church perceived its list of books as closed. Before the fourth century, they say, Christians did not have a canon but only individual books of "Scripture," perceived to be authoritative and inspired

~ 5 ~

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download